Bacterial contamination of Healthcare workers’ mobile phones in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Demisu Zenbaba, Biniyam Sahiledengle, Girma Beressa, Fikreab Desta, Zinash Teferu, Fikadu Nugusu, Daniel Atlaw, Zerihun Shiferaw, Ayele Mamo, Wogane Negash, Getahun Negash, Mohammedaman Mama, Eshetu Nigussie, Vijay Kumar Chattu
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.27.22275700

Abstract

Background Mobile phones are potential reservoirs for pathogens and sources of healthcare-associated illnesses. More microbes can be found on a mobile phone than on a man’s lavatory seat, the sole of a shoe, or a door handle. When examining patients, frequent handling of mobile phones can spread bacteria and provide a suitable breeding environment for numerous microorganisms. Nevertheless, evidence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones among healthcare workers in Africa was not conclusive. Thus, this meta-analysis and systematic review was conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare workers and the most frequent bacterial isolates in Africa.

Methods We systematically retrieved relevant studies using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, POPLINE, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar from 2009 to 2021 publication year. We included observational studies that reported the prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones among healthcare workers. Two independent authors assessed the quality of the studies. The DerSimonian-random Laird’s effect model was used to calculate effect estimates for the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination in mobile phones, as well as a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results Among 3882 retrieved studies, 23 eligible articles with a total sample size of 2,623 study participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of mobile phones bacterial contamination among healthcare workers was 83.9% (95% CI: 80.6, 87.2%; I2 = 98%, p-value < 0.001). The most dominant type of bacteria isolated in this review was coagulase-negative staphylococci (CONS) which accounted for 44.5% of the pooled contamination rate of mobile phones used by healthcare workers, followed by Staphylococcus aureus (32.3%), and Escherichia coli (8.4%).

Conclusion The review indicated that the contamination with a different bacterial isolate of mobile phones used by health care workers was high. The most dominant bacterial isolates were Coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli. Hence, these findings would have implications for policymakers and resource allocation for preventive measures initiatives.

Introduction

Currently, mobile phones have become essential accessories for healthcare workers and social life [1, 2]. Mobile phones have become an important part of the healthcare delivery system because they improve the quality of care and communication [1, 3]. It also makes interdepartmental communication easier, allowing for faster interactions within healthcare institutions and more efficient access to information for patient care [4, 5]. Despite all of the potential benefits, mobile phones play a critical role in becoming potential germ reservoirs and are known to induce healthcare-associated diseases [6-9].

A variety of bacteria, including skin flora and pathogenic bacteria, have been identified on the surface of mobile phones [10, 11]. In HICs, bacterial infections on healthcare personnel’s mobile phones range from 75 to 96% [12-19]. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Micrococcus were the most commonly recovered bacteria, followed by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species [12-19]. In low-and middle-income countries’ healthcare settings, bacterial contamination rates of mobile phones used by healthcare personnel ranged from 42% to 100%. The most prevalent bacteria isolated were coagulase-negative staphylococci, Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter species, Pseudomonas species, and MRSA bacteria [20-26]. Several infectious illnesses, including diarrhea, food poisoning, and wound infections, are caused by these bacteria [3, 27, 28].

The global burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is increasing, resulting in increased morbidity and death among patients and significant challenges for the healthcare system [7, 29, 30]. The cumulative incidence of HAIs ranges from 5.7 to 48.5% within African countries [31]. Contamination of inanimate gadgets used by healthcare professionals, such as cell phones, is one of the many sources of healthcare-acquired infections [30, 32]. More bacteria can be found on a mobile phone than on a man’s lavatory seat, the sole of a shoe, or a door handle [31, 33, 34]. Drug-resistant organisms such as MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) have also been found in hospital settings using mobile phones. The drug-resistant bacterium that can cause HAIs and is a public health issue was found to be responsible for 40% to 70% of the contamination of healthcare professionals’ mobile phones [14, 33].

When examining patients, frequent handling of mobile phones can spread bacteria and provide a suitable breeding environment for numerous microorganisms [10, 35, 36]. Although there has been some small-scale research on the bacterial contamination of mobile phones among healthcare workers, a comprehensive review and meta-analysis have not been conducted for Africa. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare workers and the most common bacterial isolates in Africa. Besides, we anticipated descriptively summarizing bacterial isolates’ antimicrobial susceptibility and multidrug resistance patterns.

Methods

Registration and protocol

This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones among HCWs in Africa. To ensure the usefulness of this SRMA to the readers, we developed a transparent, complete, and accurate report of the purpose of this review, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria (Additional file 1 Table). This systematic review was carried out following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of a proportion of evidence [37]. The systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered in PROSPERO (record ID: CRD42022306250, February 22, 2022).

Search strategy

We systematically retrieved relevant studies using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, POPLINE, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar from inception to March 25, 2022. All the databases were comprehensively searched to find potentially relevant papers published and unpublished between 2009 and 2021. All searches were limited to English-language papers. In addition to the electronic database search, Google was used to look for grey literature. We also looked for related studies in the reference lists of included studies. For the PubMed/MEDLINE search, the following phrases and keywords were used:[“Bacterial Contamination” OR “microbial contamination” OR “Contamination, equipment” AND “Cell Phones” OR “Mobile Phone” OR “Mobile Phones” OR “Smart Phones” OR “cellular Phones” AND Health Personnel” OR “HealthCare Providers” OR “Health Care Provider” OR “Provider, Health Care” OR “Healthcare Providers” OR “Healthcare Provider” OR “Provider, Healthcare” OR “Healthcare Workers” OR “Healthcare Worker” OR “Health Care Professionals” OR “Health Care Professional” OR “Professional, Health Care” AND Africa). We used database-specific subject headings linked with the above terms and keywords used in PubMed for the other electronic databases (Additional file 2).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria

The review process included all studies that met the following criteria: (1) studies that reported the magnitude of bacterial contamination from healthcare workers’ mobile phones surfaces, (2) studies published in English but conducted only in Africa at any given time, and (3) studies conducted using standard bacteriological techniques (i.e., swab method or settle plate sampling method) [32, 38, 39]. (4) Studies that accurately reported the swab culture growth rate for bacterial isolates, (5) all relevant free-of-charge full-text original research articles, and (6) all observational study designs, including published and unpublished studies, were all taken into account.

Exclusion Criteria

The study was excluded for the following reasons: inaccessible or irretrievable full-text articles after contacting the corresponding authors via email at least two times; reviews, commentaries, letters to the editor, conference proceedings, and abstracts; studies with unclear methods; reports from inanimate objects other than mobile phones (such as Stethoscopes, BP apparatus, and patient beds); studies conducted on non-healthcare workers; and studies that did not report the outcome of interest.

Assessment of outcome variables

The primary outcome variable was the prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare workers, as defined by the included studies’ operational definition. The prevalence of mobile phone bacterial contamination was calculated by dividing the total number of swabs collected from the mobile phones of healthcare professionals by the total number of swabs taken from mobile phones of healthcare workers and multiplying by 100. The second objective of this study was to descriptively characterize the most common types of bacteria isolated from healthcare workers’ mobile phones and their drug sensitivity and resistance patterns, utilizing studies that were included.

Operational definitions

Non-selective bacteria isolation method

Culture mediums such as blood agar and nutrient agar can grow a wide variety of bacteria [39].

Selective bacteria isolation method

A culture medium such as MacConkey agar is more selective to isolate ‘bile tolerant’ bacteria found in the large intestine [39].

Study selection and data extraction

All the retrieved citations were imported into EndNote version X8 and duplicates were removed. The JBI data extraction format was used to extract the data [40]. Based on the established inclusion criteria, two authors (DZ and BS) independently assessed and identified papers by their titles, abstracts, and full texts. Any disagreements that arose were resolved by consensus or with the additional author/s (DZ and GB). The data extraction format included the primary author, publication year, country, study area, bacteria isolation method, optimum temperature, incubation period, the most prevalent types of bacteria isolated, isolated bacteria drug sensitivity, isolated bacteria drug resistance, sample size, and prevalence of mobile phone bacterial contamination.

Assessment of risk of bias

The quality of the appended studies was assessed using the JBI meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review instrument (MAStARI) quality rating tool [40, 41]. An appropriate sampling frame, proper sampling technique, study subject and setting description, sufficient data analysis, use of valid methods for the identified conditions, a valid measurement for all participants, using appropriate statistical analysis, in a valid and reliable outcome measure, with a 50% or higher overall score considered low risk of bias, are among the JBI parameters. As a result, bias risks were classified as low (total score of 2), moderate (total score of 3-4), or high (total score of > 5) [41]. Two independent authors rated the quality of the included studies (DZ and BS). Any disagreements that arose were addressed through consensus. Finally, papers with a score of 5 or higher were ruled out as having a significant risk of bias (Additional file 3).

Data synthesis

Before being evaluated, the data was extracted into a Microsoft Excel file. The data were analyzed using STATA software version 16. The standard errors of the included studies were determined using the formula (SE = p (1p)/n). To investigate heterogeneity in the stated proportion, the I2 statistics and p-values of the Cochrane Q-test were utilized. The Cochrane Q-test p-values are less than 0.1 and are deemed to indicate the presence of heterogeneity among studies. To assess the percentage of total variance owing to heterogeneity across trials, we used the Higgins I2 test statistics [41]. Although no specific criterion exists for when heterogeneity becomes substantial, some researchers suggest low heterogeneity when I2 values are between (25–50%), moderate (50–75%), and high (> 75%) [41]. Because the test statistic revealed significant heterogeneity among the research (I2 = 98%, p-value 0.001), the DerSimonian-influence Laird’s was analyzed using a random-effects model. The effect sizes were calculated as a percentage with a 95% confidence interval (CI). There was a lot of variation in the included studies in this review according to the I2 category. We used subgroup analysis by sub-region, study area, bacteria isolation method, sample size, and publication year to find the source of variation. The meta-analysis findings were displayed using a forest plot. A funnel plot was employed in conjunction with meta-regression to assess publication bias. The plot resembles an asymmetrical, huge, inverted funnel in the absence of publication bias. Egger’s weighted regression and Begg’s rank correlation tests (p-value < 0.05) were used to objectively assess publication bias; however, only Egger’s test was shown to be statistically significant (p-value = 0.001). To test the findings’ robustness, a leave-one-out sensitivity meta-analysis was used.

Results

A total of 3,882 articles were identified after a thorough search of the literature. Of these articles, 2,951 duplicates were removed, and 931 were screened only based on their titles and abstracts. Following the exclusion of 844 articles, a total of 87 full-text papers were verified for eligibility using the pre-determined criteria, with 64 articles being excluded. Finally, 23 articles [21–25, 42-59] that satisfied the criteria were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Flow chart of study selection for systematic review and meta-analysis of bacterial contamination of mobile phones among healthcare workers in Africa.

Descriptions of the included studies

All included studies were cross-sectional by design and were published between 2009 and 2021. The current meta-analysis used 2,623 mobile phones from healthcare professionals to estimate the pooled proportion of bacterial contamination. In terms of sub-regional distribution, nine studies were from Eastern Africa [22, 24, 25, 42, 44–46, 58], four studies from Western [21, 51, 52, 55], seven studies from Northern [23, 47–50, 54, 57], one study from Southern [56], and two studies from middle African countries [53, 59] (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1: Descriptive summary of 23 studies included in the meta-analysis to estimate pooled prevalence of HCWs bacterial contamination of mobile phones in Africa.

Prevalence and types of bacterial isolates

The pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare professionals in Africa was 83.9%; 95% CI: (80.6, 87.2%) (Fig.2). the high heterogeneity was showed among included studies (I2 = 98%, p = 0.001). As a result, a random effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones of healthcare personnel. A univariate meta-regression analysis was performed using variables such as year of publication, quality score, and sample size to identify credible sources of heterogeneity. Accordingly, the year of publication was a significant source of variability among the variables included in the studies (Table 2).

Figure 2:
Figure 2: Forest plot of pooled bacterial contamination rate of mobile phones used by healthcare workers in Africa.
View this table:
Table 2: Factors with the heterogeneity of HCWs mobile phones bacterial contamination based on univariate meta-regression

The most prevalent bacteria in this review were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CONS), which accounted for 44.5% of the pooled contamination rate (95% CI: 34.3, 54.8%) of mobile phones used by healthcare workers, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 32.3% of the pooled contamination rate (95% CI: (34.3, 54.8%) of mobile phones used by healthcare workers (24.3, 40.2%). On the other hand, the gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli was found in 8.4% of mobile phones used by healthcare personnel (95% CI: (5.1, 11.7%)) (Fig. 3-5).

Figure 3:
Figure 3: Forest plot of pooled contamination rate of mobile phones of healthcare workers by coagulase-negative staphylococci in Africa.
Figure 4:
Figure 4: Forest plot of pooled contamination rate of mobile phones of healthcare workers by Staphylococcus aurous in Africa.
Figure 5:
Figure 5: Forest plot of pooled contamination rate of mobile phones of healthcare workers by Escherichia Coli in Africa.

Sensitivity analysis

The findings were put to the test using a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. The random-effects model was shown to be robust, and according to the sensitivity analyses, no single study had an effect on the pooled rate of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare personnel. The pooled mobile phone bacterial contamination was nearly equal to the real effect magnitude when a single study was eliminated from a meta-analysis (Fig. 6).

Figure 6:
Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of mobile phones bacterial contamination removed at a time: contamination rate and 95% confidence interval among healthcare workers in Africa.

Publication bias

The funnel plot was used to examine the publication bias. The funnel plot demonstrated that the item distribution was consistent. We employed Begg’s and Egger’s tests to objectively confirm the asymmetry. In the prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare workers, Egger’s test indicated evidence of publishing bias (p 0.001). However, Begg’s test revealed no indication of publication bias (p = 1.999). (Fig. 7). As a result, a non-parametric trim-and-fill analysis of the publication bias linear estimator was performed on the left, with the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination set to 79.8% (Fig.8).

Figure 7:
Figure 7: Funnel plot with 95% confidence limits of the pooled bacterial contamination rate of mobile phones used by healthcare workers in Africa.
Figure 8:
Figure 8: Funnel plot trim fill analysis with 95% confidence limits of the pooled bacterial contamination rate of mobile phones used by healthcare workers in Africa.

Subgroup analysis

This meta-analysis used subgroup analysis based on the country’s sub-regions, study setting, and sample size. As a result, the northern African countries had the greatest pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones, at 87.3% (95% CI: (81.6, 93.0%), followed by the eastern African countries, at 83.62 %(95 % CI: 74.40, 92.84%). A subgroup analysis depending on the year of publication was also performed. The combined percentage of bacterial contamination in mobile phones among studies conducted from 2009 to 2014 and 2015 to 2021 was 62.5% and 88% respectively. The prevalence of bacterial contamination on mobile phones was 95.2% in studies that used a selective bacterial isolation method. However, it was found to be 70.4% in studies that used a non-selective bacterial isolation method, and 86.3% among studies that used both (selective + non-selective) bacterial isolation methods. A substantial source of variability was observed across the country’s sub-regions, year of publication, types of healthcare facilities, and bacterial isolation methods of included studies in all subgroup analyses (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3: The subgroup rate of mobile phone bacterial contamination among healthcare workers in Africa (2009–2021)

Narrative review

Antimicrobial susceptibility and multidrug resistance patterns

We descriptively explained the antimicrobial susceptibility and multidrug resistance of bacterial isolates using 14 studies [21, 22, 24, 25, 42–46, 53–56, 58]. According to an Ethiopian study, bacterial isolates had a greater rate of resistance to penicillin (84%), ampicillin (81%), and tetracycline (81%). Nevertheless, a study conducted in Nigeria revealed that over 75% of bacterial isolates were sensitive to fluoroquinolone and ceftriaxone (Table 4).

View this table:
Table 4: Summary of antimicrobial susceptibility and multidrug resistance pattern of bacterial isolates in Africa

Discussion

Mobile phones (MPs) are now widely used worldwide and are regarded as one of the essential gadgets. This technology is thought to be one of the most significant threats to human health [60, 61]. Healthcare workers’ (HCWs’) continuous handlings of MPs promote the spread of healthcare-associated illnesses [62]. In addition, pathogenic organisms colonizing mobile phones may increase antibiotic resistance [1]. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare workers in Africa. As a result, 83.9% of mobile phones were found to be contaminated with bacteria. Mobile phone bacterial contamination is responsible for different infectious illnesses and increases the burden of nosocomial infections unless standard guidelines for using and cleaning mobile phones in health care settings are established [1, 3, 27, 28]. On the other hand, bacterial contamination of MPs could be a significant concern influencing the execution of efficient infection prevention measures, thus jeopardizing efforts to limit cross-contamination [63]. This review’s result was somewhat higher than that of a meta-analysis in Egypt, which reported a pooled prevalence of bacterial contamination of mobile phones of 78% [26]. Similarly, this review finding was consistent with findings from a systematic review published elsewhere [64]. The variation in bacterial contamination of mobile phones could be due to the varying levels of hand hygiene practiced by healthcare staff, the different models of mobile phones utilized, and bacterial isolation method [17, 65]. Furthermore, the type and load of bacterial contamination are known to be influenced by the design of touchscreen phones and the type of keypad surface [66-68].

We conducted a sub-group analysis based on country sub-region, finding that research from northern African countries had the highest incidence of bacterial contamination in mobile phones. In contrast, studies from southern African countries had the lowest prevalence. Compared to research conducted in other countries in sub-regions, most of the papers included in this review were from eastern and northern African countries, and differences in healthcare facilities could explain regional heterogeneity. Another reason for the disparities could be variances in healthcare personnel’s hand hygiene standards, mobile phone cleaning methods, and phone types (touchscreen versus Keypad surface). As a result of our findings, it may be necessary to encourage all African countries to achieve a zero prevalence of bacterial contamination in mobile phones.

A subgroup analysis was also performed using the year of publication and the method of bacterial isolation. As a result, studies conducted from 2015 to 2021 found a higher incidence of bacterial contamination in mobile phones than studies conducted from 2009 to 2014, which demonstrated a lower frequency of bacterial contamination. This disparity could be because smartphones or screen touch mobile phones, which have a high contamination rate and have been used by healthcare personnel in recent years, have a high contamination rate. In terms of bacterial isolation methods, research using selective bacterial isolation methods like MacConkey had the highest frequency of bacterial contamination on mobile phones compared to studies using non-selective and both (selective & non-selective) bacterial isolation methods. These differences could be related to competition among bacteria as selective media inhibit other contaminating organisms.

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CONS) were the most common bacteria isolated in this review, followed by gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus. However, Staphylococcus aureus is the most common bacterial infection in most countries and is responsible for over 1 million worldwide deaths, with no focus on global public health expenditure [10]. Escherichia coli were the most isolated gram-negative bacteria from mobile phones used by healthcare personnel. The possible reason for the high isolation of Staphylococci species might be related to their residence in mucosal systems and the isolation of E. coli, possibly due to cross-contamination with gastrointestinal samples. This finding was in line with findings from other studies [1, 2, 10, 16, 69].

The review’s second objective was to describe medication sensitivity and resistance patterns among African bacterial isolates. In a study conducted in Ethiopia, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin were effective against 71.7% and 89.1% of gram-positive bacterial isolates such as CONs and S. aureus, respectively, while E. coli was 100% sensitive to ciprofloxacin, gentamycin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [42]. However, a study conducted in Nigeria found substantial resistance levels to cotrimoxazole, tetracycline, ampicillin, gentamicin, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin [21]. Most patients who are treated at home are resistant to one or more antimicrobials [66]. Different bacterial strains, hospital environment, empirical treatment practice, use of antibacterial as a prophylactic, easy availability of some drugs without a prescription, drug dose, and indiscriminate/prolonged use of common antibiotics could all contribute to discrepancies in antimicrobial susceptibility in the included studies [70].

Data Availability

The manuscript contains all pertinent information.

Limitations

This research has certain limitations. Since all of the studies examined were cross-sectional studies in design, it could be difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship. The study’s findings were only generalizable to the included country’s sub-regions. In the end, only articles written in English were considered. Finally, future researchers should concentrate on observational studies with well-designed designs, such as cohort and interventional studies.

Conclusion

The contamination of mobile phones used by HCWs with various bacterial isolates was found to be high in this review. The most common bacteria isolated were coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli. The prevalence of bacterial contamination in mobile phones varies by country and sub-region. Healthcare workers should be required to practice proper hand hygiene and clean after using their phones in healthcare facilities. Thus, healthcare planners and policymakers should adopt guidelines to govern healthcare workers’ hand hygiene, disinfection, sterilization, and cleansing after using mobile phones in healthcare facilities.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The manuscript contains all pertinent information.

Competing interests

There are no competing interests declared by the authors.

Funding

There was no funding for this work from any entity.

Author’s contributions

DZ, BS, GB contributed to the conception, design, data extraction, and AM, FD, FN, DA, WN, MM, ZT and VC evaluated the methodological quality of the articles included, as well as the participated in data analysis, interpretation, writing the first draft of the paper. Finally, the authors read, commented on, edited, and approved the final draft version.

Additional files

Additional file 1: PRISMA checklist (DOC)

Additional file 2: Search results of electronic databases (Screenshot)

Additional file 3: Risk of bias assessment of included studies (XLSX).

References

  1. 1.↵
    Kotris I, Drenjanèeviæ D, Talapko J, Bukovski S. Identification of microorganisms on mobile phones of intensive care unit health care workers and medical students in the tertiary hospital. Medicinski glasnik. 2017;14(1).
  2. 2.↵
    Heyba M, Ismaiel M, Alotaibi A, Mahmoud M, Baqer H, Safar A, et al. Microbiological contamination of mobile phones of clinicians in intensive care units and neonatal care units in public hospitals in Kuwait. BMC infectious diseases. 2015;15(1):434–.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Ulger F, Dilek A, Esen S, Sunbul M, Leblebicioglu H. Are healthcare workers’ mobile phones a potential source of nosocomial infections? Review of the literature. Journal of infection in developing countries. 2015;9(10):1046–53.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Prgomet M, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians’ work practices and patient care: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2009;16(6):792–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Ventola CL. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2014;39(5):356.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Manning ML, Davis J, Sparnon E, Ballard RM. iPads, droids, and bugs: Infection prevention for mobile handheld devices at the point of care. American journal of infection control. 2013;41(11):1073–6.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Brady RR, Verran J, Damani N, Gibb A. Review of mobile communication devices as potential reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2009;71(4):295–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Smibert O, Aung A, Woolnough E, Carter G, Schultz M, Howden B, et al. Mobile phones and computer keyboards: unlikely reservoirs of multidrug-resistant organisms in the tertiary intensive care unit. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2018;99(3):295–8.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Christensen G, Bruggemann H. Bacterial skin commensals and their role as host guardians. Benef Microbes 5 (2): 201–215. 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Shah PD, Shaikh NM, Dholaria KV. Microorganisms isolated from mobile phones and hands of health-care workers in a tertiary care hospital of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Indian Journal of Public Health. 2019;63(2):147.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Ulger F, Dilek A, Esen S, Sunbul M, Leblebicioglu H. Are healthcare workers’ mobile phones a potential source of nosocomial infections? Review of the literature. The journal of infection in developing countries. 2015;9(10):1046–53.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Ustun C, Cihangiroglu M. Health care workers’ mobile phones: a potential cause of microbial cross-contamination between hospitals and community. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. 2012;9(9):538–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    Saxena S, Singh T, Agarwal H, Mehta G, Dutta R. Bacterial colonization of rings and cell phones carried by health-care providers: are these mobile bacterial zoos in the hospital? Tropical doctor. 2011;41(2):116–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Bhat SS, Hegde SK, Salian S. Potential of mobile phones to serve as a reservoir in spread of nosocomial pathogens. Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences. 2011;10(2).
  15. 15.
    Parthasarathy A, Wong NH, Weiss AN, Tian S, Ali SE, Cavanaugh NT, et al. Selfies and cellfies: Whole genome sequencing and annotation of five antibiotic resistant bacteria isolated from the surfaces of smartphones, an inquiry based laboratory exercise in a genomics undergraduate course at the rochester institute of technology. Journal of genomics. 2019;7:26.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Pal S, Juyal D, Adekhandi S, Sharma M, Prakash R, Sharma N, et al. Mobile phones: Reservoirs for the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Advanced biomedical research. 2015;4.
  17. 17.↵
    Galazzi A, Panigada M, Broggi E, Grancini A, Adamini I, Binda F, et al. Microbiological colonization of healthcare workers’ mobile phones in a tertiary-level Italian intensive care unit. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 2019;52:17–21.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    Pillet S, Berthelot P, Gagneux-Brunon A, Mory O, Gay C, Viallon A, et al. Contamination of healthcare workers’ mobile phones by epidemic viruses. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2016;22(5):456. e1-. e6.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Tannhäuser R, Nickel O, Lindner M, Bethge A, Wolf J, Borte S, et al. Bacterial contamination of the smartphones of healthcare workers in a German tertiary-care hospital before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. American journal of infection control. 2021.
  20. 20.↵
    Tambe NN, Pai C. A study of microbial flora and MRSA harboured by mobile phones of health care personnel. Int J Rec Tre Sci Tech. 2012;4:14–8.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Nwankwo EO, Ekwunife N, Mofolorunsho KC. Nosocomial pathogens associated with the mobile phones of healthcare workers in a hospital in Anyigba, Kogi state, Nigeria. Journal of epidemiology and global health. 2014;4(2):135–40.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Asfaw T, Genetu D. High Rate of Bacterial Contamination on Healthcare Worker’s Mobile Phone and Potential Role in Dissemination of Healthcare-Associated Infection at Debre Berhan Referral Hospital, North Shoa Zone, Ethiopia. Risk management and healthcare policy. 2021;14:2601.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Haghamad A. Prevalence of Bacterial Contamination on Mobile Phones of Medical Staff in Shendi Hospitals-Sudan. 2021.
  24. 24.↵
    Araya S, Desta K, Woldeamanuel Y. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria on Healthcare Workers’ Mobile Phones: Evidence from Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Risk management and healthcare policy. 2021;14:283–91.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Mushabati N, Samutela M, Yamba K, Ngulube J, Nakazwe R, Nkhoma P, et al. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of healthcare workers at the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia. Infection Prevention in Practice. 2021;3(2):100126.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Omran A, Taha MS. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones among health care workers: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Medicine in Scientific Research. 2020;3(2):87.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Pérez-Cano H, Santos MR, Moreno BC. Microbiota in mobile phones of medical ophthalmologists. Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Edition). 2019;94(2):55–9.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Curtis A, Moore Z, Patton D, O’Connor T, Nugent L. Does using a cellular mobile phone increase the risk of nosocomial infections in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A systematic review. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2018;24(5):247–52.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Leong XYA, Chong SY, Koh SEA, Yeo BC, Tan KY, Ling ML. Healthcare workers’ beliefs, attitudes and compliance with mobile phone hygiene in a main operating theatre complex. Infection Prevention in Practice. 2020;2(1):100031.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Bhardwaj N, Khatri M, Bhardwaj SK, Sonne C, Deep A, Kim KH. A review on mobile phones as bacterial reservoirs in healthcare environments and potential device decontamination approaches. Environmental research. 2020;186:109569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Nejad SB, Allegranzi B, Syed SB, Ellis B, Pittet D. Health-care-associated infection in Africa: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2011;89:757–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Pasquarella C, Pitzurra O, Savino A. The index of microbial air contamination. Journal of hospital infection. 2000;46(4):241–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Website. Your Cell Phone Is 10 Times Dirtier Than a Toilet Seat [Internet, Time (2021) http://timecom/4908654/cell-phone-bacteria/. Mar, 2019 16.
  34. 34.↵
    Simmonds R, Lee D, Hayhurst E. Mobile phones as fomites for potential pathogens in hospitals: microbiome analysis reveals hidden contaminants. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2020;104(2):207–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Beer D, Vandermeer B, Brosnikoff C, Shokoples S, Rennie R, Forgie S. BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS’PAGERS AND THE EFFICACY OF VARIOUS DISINFECTING AGENTS. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2006;25(11):1074–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Huffman S, Webb C, Spina SP. Investigation into the cleaning methods of smartphones and wearables from infectious contamination in a patient care environment (I-SWIPE). American journal of infection control. 2020;48(5):545–9.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI evidence synthesis. 2020;18(10):2108–18.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Getachew H, Derbie A, Mekonnen D. Surfaces and air bacteriology of selected wards at a referral hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020;101:44–5.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Wayne P. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Informational Supplement, M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI); 2018.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Aromataris E,
    2. Munn Z
    Moola S. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk in: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds Joanna Briggs institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017.
  41. 41.↵
    Higgins J, Altman D, Gøtzsche P, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman A, et al. Cochrane bias methods group; cochrane statistical methods group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Daka D. Antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from mobile phone and hands of Health care workers in the Hawassa referral Hospital, South Ethiopia. Journal of Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2014;6(4):72–8.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Ayalew W, Mulu W, Biadglegne F. Bacterial contamination and antibiogram of isolates from health care workers’ fomites at Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital, northwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2019;33(2).
  44. 44.↵
    Misgana GM, Abdissa K, Abebe G. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health care workers at Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Jimma, South West Ethiopia. International Journal of Infection Control. 2015;11(1).
  45. 45.
    Gashaw M, Abtew D, Addis Z. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacteria isolated from mobile phones of health care professionals working in Gondar town health centers. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2014;2014.
  46. 46.↵
    Bodena D, Teklemariam Z, Balakrishnan S, Tesfa T. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health professionals in Eastern Ethiopia: antimicrobial susceptibility and associated factors. Tropical medicine and health. 2019;47:15.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Mohamedin A, Elsayed A, Nashnoush HA. Bacterial Contamination of Mobile Phones Healthcare Versus Non-Healthcare Workers at Mansoura City, Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology. 2019;10(2):101–9.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Elgabeery RE. Healthcare Workers’ Mobile Phones as a Possible Vehicle of Nosocomial Pathogens and the Role of Different Disinfectants in their Decontamination. Egyptian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2021;30(3):29–36.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.
    Selim HS, Abaza AF. Microbial contamination of mobile phones in a health care setting in Alexandria, Egypt. GMS hygiene and infection control. 2015;10:Doc03-Doc.
  50. 50.↵
    Shahaby A, Awad N, El-Tarras A, Bahobial A. Mobile phone as potential reservoirs of bacterial pathogens. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2012;11(92):15896–904.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Yar DD, Francis G, Roland K, Collins O-A, Balali GI, Kuffour RA, et al. Mobile Phones of Healthcare Workers are Possible Source of Nosocomial Infections: Evidence from Asante-Mampong Municipal Government Hospital, Ghana.
  52. 52.↵
    Fandoh ME. Mobile Phone Use and Associated Bacterial Contamination in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital: University Of Ghana; 2018.
  53. 53.↵
    Mohamadou M, Kountchou L, Mbah C, Bamia A, Abdouraman B, Ngoutane A. Social Habits of Health Professionals and their Mobile Phones as Source of MDR Nosocomial Bacteria in Cameroon, Sub Saharan Africa. J Infect Dis Prev Med. 2021;9:214.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Daoudi A, Nadia El Idrissi S, Bennaoui F, Alaoui M, Soraa N, Fadl Mrabih Rabou M. Study of Bacterial Contamination of Mobile Phones and Stethoscopes in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. International journal of pediatrics (Mashhad). 2017;5(11):6139–42.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Akinyemi KO, Atapu AD, Adetona OO, Coker AO. The potential role of mobile phones in the spread of bacterial infections. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2009;3(08):628–32.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Bobat R, Archary M, Lawler M, Mawlana S, Naidoo KL, Maphumulo S, et al. The presence and spectrum of bacteria colonising mobile phones of staff and caregivers in high disease burden paediatric and neonatal wards in an urban teaching hospital in Durban, South Africa. Southern African Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2017;32(1):9–11.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Osman M, Omer S, Almugadam B, Ahmed H. Frequency of MRSA isolates in mobile phones, ears and hands of healthcare workers. J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;4(161):2472–1212.1000161.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Tusage Fred. Bacterial Contamination of Healthcare worker’s Mobile Phones; a Case Study at Two Referral Hospitals in Uganda. 2021.
  59. 59.↵
    Christelle KM, Hendrick ML, Henri MT. Microbial Ecology of Mobile Phones Staff Maternity Hospital Public Lubumbashi, DR Congo. Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;3(3):1–4.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Goldblatt JG, Krief I, Klonsky T, Haller D, Milloul V, Sixsmith DM, et al. Use of cellular telephones and transmission of pathogens by medical staff in New York and Israel. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2007;28(4):500–3.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Kirkby S, Biggs C, Ikuta L, Zukowsky K. Cell phones in the neonatal intensive care unit. Advances in Neonatal Care. 2016;16(6):404–9.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Koroglu M, Gunal S, Yildiz F, Savas M, Ozer A, Altindis M. Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination. Journal of infection in developing countries. 2015;9(12):1308–14.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Shakir IA, Patel NH, Chamberland RR, Kaar SG. Investigation of cell phones as a potential source of bacterial contamination in the operating room. JBJS. 2015;97(3):225–31.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Loyola S, Gutierrez LR, Horna G, Petersen K, Agapito J, Osada J, et al. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in cell phones of health care workers from Peruvian pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. American journal of infection control. 2016;44(8):910–6.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Shahlol A, Khalifallah H, Shahlol E, Dastidar R, Halder M, Lamichhane G. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones and hands of health care workers in Sabha Medical Center Hospital, Fazzan area in southwestern of LIBYA. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2015;1(4):1–8.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Morvai J, Szabó R. The role of mobile communication devices in the spread of infections. Orvosi Hetilap. 2015;156(20):802–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.
    Brady RR, Chitnis S, Stewart RW, Graham C, Yalamarthi S, Morris K. NHS connecting for health: healthcare professionals, mobile technology, and infection control. Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association. 2012;18(4):289–91.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Al Momani W, Khatatbeh M, Altaany Z. Antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial pathogens recovered from the hand and mobile phones of university students. Germs. 2019;9(1):9.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Organization WH. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance: World Health Organization; 2014.
  70. 70.↵
    Control CfD, Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013 Atlanta. GA: CDC. 2013.
Back to top
Posted May 27, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Bacterial contamination of Healthcare workers’ mobile phones in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Demisu Zenbaba, Biniyam Sahiledengle, Girma Beressa, Fikreab Desta, Zinash Teferu, Fikadu Nugusu, Daniel Atlaw, Zerihun Shiferaw, Ayele Mamo, Wogane Negash, Getahun Negash, Mohammedaman Mama, Eshetu Nigussie, Vijay Kumar Chattu
medRxiv 2022.05.27.22275700; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.27.22275700
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area